November 3, 2013

Will actresses today take one for the team while filming?

Reading through the items at Blind Gossip gives you some interesting "behind the scenes" details that you would normally hear on a DVD commentary. But, not liking many of these movies, I'd never get to hear that commentary track, which might shed light on what exactly is crippling the world of film-making (distinct from money-making).

Here is a solved item about how Scarlett Johansson responded to Eric Bana showing wood during a kissing scene for The Other Boleyn Girl:

Actors usually don’t have a problem staying in control during love scenes. Since romance is blocked and rehearsed and shot under the hot lights and in front of a large crew, even the most intimate scenes are usually little more than a carefully choreographed, technical exercise.

However, on the set of this one period film, things got a little out of control. During a kissing scene between a handsome, foreign-born actor and a sexy American actress, the actress suddenly stopped and backed away a few paces from her co-star. The actor was left standing there alone. Well, he wasn’t exactly alone. He was accompanied by the incredible bulge in his pants. Filming had to be halted for several minutes while the actor cooled off...

When Bana started getting excited during a love scene, Johansson simply backed away and waited for assistance. According to our source on the set, Johansson was totally professional about the whole situation, and went right back into the scene after a brief “cool down” period.

What, was that the first boner she'd ever seen in her life of 23 years? She had to back away like he had cooties, or like any sign of red-blooded male libido is a threat of rape, and could only resume filming "several minutes" later, once he'd lost his lust? Warning: spontaneity level rising, initiating emergency cool down sequence. Wouldn't want the audience to feel that what they're seeing is real. Minimizing your awkwardness over a trivial surprise is more important.

I could see if she had been startled, like "Holy shit, there's an actor still left in Hollywood who would get hard making out with a chick," then composed herself and got back into the moment. But standing around for several minutes while the dude's dick deflates totally kills whatever they had going. Even a single incident like that while filming sends the message loud and clear to the other party: I don't want to open up to you, and you opening up to me is creepy, so let's please stick to just going through the motions.

Do actresses know how to "be adults" anymore? How to "suck it up," "take one for the team," etc.? I suspect this is a big reason why so many on-screen interactions feel so fake. There's an implicit understanding that each party has strewn all these mines around the field of their being, so that all the other parties don't even bother trying to let it all hang out and fully get into their roles without asking questions about "Can I go here? May I go there?" etc.

When actresses give off such a strong vibe of "omigod, i can't believe you just went there," it makes the other side close themselves off, and the result is two people talking at each other across a vast interpersonal chasm. It's lifeless.

If you listen to the commentary tracks on any of your favorite movies from the '70s or '80s, you'll regularly hear people tell stories about how much more trusting everyone used to be back in those days. They were willing to give more of themselves if they sensed it would make a better movie. And both the cast and crew were hungry, and not just financially -- there was a greater sense of urgency in the social atmosphere of the time. Give it your all since you might not get another shot. Cast and crew these days come off more complacent and even entitled.

What periods come to mind when you think of "Hollywood divas"? Obviously our Millennial era, but also the mid-century (Golden Age, Hollywood Glamour). Femme fatales on-screen, divas off-screen. They were comparatively rarer during the Silent period / Jazz Age, and during the New Wave Age.

I'm scratching my head trying to think of an "it's all about me" major actress from the '80s... Kathleen Turner, maybe? And she didn't project that vibe all too strongly anyway. Back then they were more giving toward the project they were working on, whether they were younger ones like Elisabeth Shue or more mature ones like Sigourney Weaver. They're more about "go with the flow" than grinding production to a halt over something trivial. They'd only stop things if they felt that what was going on wouldn't be true to the character, and had suggestions for how it might be improved -- not because it made the actress personally mildly uncomfortable. Or so I gather from all those commentaries I've listened to.

What accounts for these cycles in other-focused vs. self-focused acting styles? The part about trust goes along with cocooning, higher trust and more sociable vs. lower trust and more withdrawn. The hunger and feeling of urgency comes from the trend in the crime rate, rising crime making people feel like they'd better piss or get off the pot before it's too late, and falling crime making them feel like they've got all the time in the world to get around to their goals, so why invest very much energy in this particular one they're working on now? Cocooning and crime cycles are closely linked to each other, so no matter which influence is stronger, crime/cocooning carves history into the right cultural periods.

She wasn't "getting sexual," just making out. If she's not attracted, she shouldn't have accepted the job, or if it were too late, she should suck it up and give the best performance she has. Not back away like a high-maintenance princess.

What if some hunky actor has to make out with someone who he's not that into, and who gets a little too eager with him? Just roll with it, to make a more convincing scene. Backing away during that kind of scene is trust-corroding.

"If she's not attracted, she shouldn't have accepted the job, or if it were too late, she should suck it up and give the best performance"

I disagree, she clearly wasn't attracted to him, otherwise she wouldn't have minded. She could have taken the job for the opportunity. I don't believe actresses only take roles with opposite men they plan to sleep with.

From what I've learned at Blind Gossip, she doesn't have any real interest in men, other than using them to advance her status, fame, and wealth.

It's unclear to me if she's a lesbian, since they're much harder to detect than gays. I think she's just more the gold-digger / femme fatale type, with no emotions or intrinsic sex drive that would over-ride the cold, rational, calculating brain.

Here's a blind about her flagrant self-promoting style of making acquaintances:

http://blindgossip.com/?p=27828&paged=5

And another about her femme fatale / intellectual put-on act to string men along in mixed company:

http://blindgossip.com/?p=27150

Her PR-mances have been to closeted queers at least since Ryan Reynolds, then two pretty clearly gay ad men. Before that was Josh Hartnett, who I haven't had time to check on, but who "gay-or-straight.com" says is 71% gay.

She tried to rope straight Sean Penn into something, but that was pure career advancement.

So, distrust of men and mercenary use of sexuality seem to be her underlying qualities. She sways her yo-yo's in men's faces to get the status boost from them that she wants, without giving it up in most cases -- just stringing them along. She only "dates" or "marries" gay men, who won't make any sexual demands.

And she backs away from spontaneous expressions of male libido like she did with Eric Bana -- those are unauthorized erections that do not serve to increase her status. She'd already gotten the role (fame +1), hence she didn't need to dial the heat up with her co-star.

Given these behavioral traits, would you be surprised to learn that she has a Jewish mother?

Now, I could care less whether some person is a cold-hearted gold-digging fag hag. But she's one of the most sought-after actresses these days. And she's just one example of a larger type that has flourished within the past 15-20 years.

Again, who is her shameless counterpart from 1983? Or even 1993?

Someone with her personality and behavioral profile is not going to make a good actress. She's closed-off, scrutinizing every action ready to apply a line-item veto. It makes her performances leaden, artificial, and pasted-together. She's managed to project a "designed by committee" quality all by herself.

You'd think that such a personality would become an asset if she needs to portray a manipulative / femme fatale character. Then it's neither a good nor a bad trait -- just something that makes her more appropriate for role A instead of role B.

But people don't realize how manipulative behavior will drain or deflate her performance no matter who she's playing.

She was OK in the femme fatale role in The Prestige, though she didn't leave much of an impression on me. I assume it's because of little "holding back" things she did here and there throughout the filming, when she could've given more of herself to the role like Bale and Jackman did.

Taking a minute to calm down doesn't sound so bad. I don't know in what way it's supposed to be "manipulative", what did she manipulate someone into doing? I can definitely see how it could be perceived as "mean" to reveal that sort of thing to the crew, but I think these people are supposed to be professionals who understand that sort of thing rather than a bunch of tittering children. There could also be the artistic argument that a more genuine performance would improve the film and she disrupted that when she should have rolled with it, but not everyone is that "method" and I don't think she tends to go for that kind of movie anyway.

Oh no, gay-or-straight.com says Wentworth Miller is gay, and he apparently came out recently. I watched the some of Prison Break in the early 2000s. He was handsome and soulful. He didn't really have any chemistry with his love interest in their kissing scenes, but I blamed it on her. She was too thin and looked like she had breast implants. In the show, she was an ex-drug addict.

The dude popped a boner -- was not about to rape her. Hence no need to calm down, which spoils the moment and any future moments they may have had.

"what did she manipulate someone into doing?"

By grinding the filming to a halt for several minutes, she manipulates the cast and crew to walk on eggshells and cater to her trivial whims rather than what they were planning to do -- shoot the damn movie in the most effective way possible.

Less-flaming gays are harder to spot. One key tip-off that he has Peter Pan issues is that he has trouble staring at the camera with his eyes open normally, or glaring. He's always narrowing his eyelids or pushing down his eyebrow, in a squinty look.

That's how children think a tough guy stares somebody down. "Oooh, here's my mean look!" Keeping your eyes open normally when staring at someone requires more psychological toughness, though. You aren't putting up as much of a shield, leaving yourself more vulnerable, showing that you can take them staring back without looking away. It also feels more aggressive when your eyes are shining a brighter light in their face than if you dampen it by narrowing your eyes.

That's how children think a tough guy stares somebody down. "Oooh, here's my mean look!" Keeping your eyes open normally when staring at someone requires more psychological toughness, though. You aren't putting up as much of a shield, leaving yourself more vulnerable, showing that you can take them staring back without looking away. It also feels more aggressive when your eyes are shining a brighter light in their face than if you dampen it by narrowing your eyes.

The narrow eyed expression kind of mimics male relative to female and adult relative to child facial structures, where the eyes are proportionately smaller and has an intimidating quality for that reason, whereas wide eyes "shining a bright light" is more intimidating through displaying the emotion of anger, aggression and frustration more clearly through "reading the mind in the eyes".

So it would make sense for people who are more intimidated by adults and masculinity (gays?) to project intimidation by mimicing or exaggerating an adult male face shape, while people who are more in tune with "reading the mind in the eyes" (socially sensitive?) and more sensitive or more insecure in the face of other people's disapproval and emotions (rather than being secure, or dismissive of overly emotional people) might find the other approach more intimidating.